Women Proposing Marriage

[runningdude]

A good husband doesn’t order his wife around in this day and age.....

Saint Paul never spoke about proposals for marriage, only duties once married.

 

[runningdude]

Sarcelle:

I have read about really public proposals, like in the middle of a baseball game or in a musical concert.

I think this is really a bad move as it pits the woman on the spot. If I remember right, the very public proposal had the couple up on the big screen. The woman did not expect it from the look on her face. She turned him down.

I agree.

I go further, though. Even as somewhat of a conservative, I’m not a fan of putting women to those high-pressure questions, especially not in any way that makes it even harder for the woman to refuse — and disappoint…

I’ll go even further and state that big public proposals are wholly inappropriate, unless perhaps mutually arranged in advance.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Let’s agree to disagree on this one. St. Paul said many things to instruct the people of his time. We can choose to interpret what he said in a way that makes common and good sense for us today, or we can argue over what he said and use it to push some viewpoint. I choose the former.

My marriage is and has always been happy, as was my parents’. Neither of us couples ever even had to have a discussion over this, or over “feminism”. It’s simply not an issue, and I have been married for almost 25 years and knew the man for 10 years before that. I do know (not sure if he told me or I just picked up on it ) that my husband wished to have a wife with a professional career who would contribute to the household income, which wasn’t an issue as I had already planned those things and had a career for many years when we married. I presume he was worried about being stuck with a lot of bills like some men he knew. I have not done that because I believe in paying my own bills to the extent I’m able, and I love him and wouldn’t burden him if I can possibly help it.

That’s all I have to say…if this topic is something important to you, perhaps you can find another discussion partner. Other than voting, equal school admissions and equal pay/ job opportunities, I don’t bother with “feminism” either.

 

[Walking_Home]

A good husband doesn’t order his wife around in this day and age, and expect her to obey him. Mine sure doesn’t.

---

Let me make a break in your fundamentalist protestant interpretation/train of thought.
In a Catholic marriage – both husband and wife have the same rights. There is no right for the husband to “lord” over his wife. They are both on equal footing.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY

THE FAMILY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...mily_doc_20001115_family-human-rights_en.html

 

[Lucretius]

@Tis_Bearself

Let’s agree to disagree on this one. St. Paul said many things to instruct the people of his time. We can choose to interpret what he said in a way that makes common and good sense for us today, or we can argue over what he said and use it to push some viewpoint. I choose the former.

How should we interpret St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s words then?

Christi pax.

 

[Lucretius]

@Walking_Home

Let me make a break in your fundamentalist protestant interpretation/train of thought. In a Catholic marriage – both husband and wife have the same rights. There is no right for the husband to “lord” over his wife. They are both on equal footing.

No one said anything about equal rights, St. Peter and St. Paul and the the Fathers and Doctors said the sexes aren’t equal, that certain virtues are more valued in one than in the other, that they relate and should relate to each other in different ways, and in particular that women should obey and be headed by their husbands as the Church obeys and is headed by Christ. This is stated at least three times in the New Testament, once by St. Peter, and twice by St. Paul.

I also remind you that Catholics view “rights” very differently from liberals.

I bring to mind St. Thomas’ words on the issue:

Hence he states: Let women be subject to their husbands because “a woman, if she have superiority, is contrary to her husband” as Ecclesiasticus 25 (30) affirms. So he especially warns them about subjection. This is as to a lord since the relation of a husband to his wife is, in a certain way, like that of a master to his servant, insofar as the latter ought to be governed by the commands of his master. The difference between these two relationships is that the master employs his servants in whatever is profitable to himself; but a husband treats his wife and children in reference to the common good. Thus he mentions as to a lord; the husband is not really a lord, but is as a lord. “Let wives be subject to their husbands” (1 Pet. 3:1).

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/Eph5.htm#8

Are St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Thomas “fundamentalist Protestants?”

Christi pax.

 

[Walking_Home]

How to interpret scripture:

Mutual Subjection

Ephesians 5:22 (“Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to
the Lord”) is sometimes misinterpreted to mean a one sided subjection of wife to husband. In fact, St. Paul calls husbands and wives to mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ. See John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatem, especially # 24; and USCCB, Follow the Way of Love , especially the section on “Growing in Mutuality.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...-and-life/upload/Pastoral-letter-Glossary.pdf

Here in this section on domestic violence – the Church speaks of the one sided submission of wife to husband – as misinterpretation/ a distortion/scripture taken out of context.

Frankly – I’d say any man who waves the “submission/obedience” flag towards women – is waving a big Red flag.

The Church Responds to Domestic Violence
Scripture and Church Teachings

Religion can be either a resource or a roadblock for battered women. As a resource, it encourages women to resist mistreatment. As a roadblock, its misinterpretation can contribute to the victim’s self-blame and suffering and to the abuser’s rationalizations.

Abused women often say, “I can’t leave this relationship. The Bible says it would be wrong.” Abusive men often say, “The Bible says my wife should be submissive to me.” They take the biblical text and distort it to support their right to batter.

As bishops, we condemn the use of the Bible to support abusive behavior in any form. A correct reading of Scripture leads people to an understanding of the equal dignity of men and women and to relationships based on mutuality and love. Beginning with Genesis, Scripture teaches that women and men are created in God’s image. Jesus himself always respected the human dignity of women. Pope John Paul II reminds us that "Christ’s way of acting, the Gospel of his words and deeds, is a consistent protest against whatever offends the dignity of women."11

Men who abuse often use Ephesians 5:22, taken out of context, to justify their behavior, but the passage (v. 21-33) refers to the mutual submission of husband and wife out of love for Christ. Husbands should love their wives as they love their own body, as Christ loves the Church.

Men who batter also cite Scripture to insist that their victims forgive them (see, for example, Mt 6:9-15). A victim then feels guilty if she cannot do so. Forgiveness, however, does not mean forgetting the abuse or pretending that it did not happen. Neither is possible. Forgiveness is not permission to repeat the abuse. Rather, forgiveness means that the victim decides to let go of the experience and move on with greater insight and conviction not to tolerate abuse of any kind again.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ge/domestic-violence/when-i-call-for-help.cfm

 

[Lucretius]

@Walking_Home

Ephesians 5:22 (“Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord”) is sometimes misinterpreted to mean a one sided subjection of wife to husband. In fact, St. Paul calls husbands and wives to mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ.

If you want to call St. Paul’s command to husbands as “submission,” fine. But you are simply equivocating if you think that the subordination of wife to husband is the same as the “subordination” of husband to wife, as is clear in the passages themselves.

Furthermore, I remind you that St. Paul never uses the term “subordinate” or the like regarding husbands to wives, that the “mutual submission” theology is novel, and finally, that St. Thomas clearly taught that only wives are to obey their husbands, not the other way around. Are you trying to say that St. Thomas is in error, because he clearly “[interpreted the passage] to mean a one sided subjection of wife to husband?”

Because the evidence seems to point otherwise, that there are people that are scandalized by this teaching, and are trying to white wash it down, or deny it even exists. Heck, in the American Missal, the priest has the option to read other passages instead of one’s like this!

Here in this section on domestic violence – the Church speaks of the one sidedsubmission of wife to husband – as misinterpretation/ a distortion/scripture taken out of context.

No one is arguing in defense of domestic violence, so that point is mute.

Frankly – I’d say any man who waves the “submission/obedience” flag towards women – is waving a big Red flag.

Maybe, but at least they aren’t acting as if the command doesn’t exist.

Christi pax.

 

[SuperLuigi]

There’s nothing I know in Church teaching that would oppose this.

 

[Walking_Home]

The relationship you want to hold-- between husband and wife – is one under the regime of sin. A marriage enveloped with a spirit of domination. Where the sin of pride rules the heart of men.-- ruling over his wife.

Christ came to restore marriage —to its original order – its original meaning. With His Grace – the “spirit of domination” can be overcome.

In a Marriage in the Lord – the spouses are subject to one another – out of reverence for Christ. With Christ-- there is no one sided – submission/obedience-- from wife to the husband

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Marriage under the regime of sin

1606 Every man experiences evil around him and within himself. This experience makes itself felt in the relationships between man and woman. Their union has always been threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, …

1607 According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations;96 their mutual attraction, the Creator’s own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust;97 and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work.98

Marriage in the Lord

1614 In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it "what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder."107

1615 … By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to “receive” the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ.109 This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life.

The grace of the sacrament of Matrimony

1642 Christ is the source of this grace. "Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony."149 Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another’s burdens, to “be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,” 150 and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love. In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb:

 

[Lucretius]

@Walking_Home

The relationship you want to hold-- between husband and wife – is one under the regime of sin. A marriage enveloped with a spirit of domination. Where the sin of pride rules the heart of men.-- ruling over his wife.

St. Thomas teaches that heirarchies and “domination” existed even before sin:

On the contrary, The condition of man in the state of innocence was not more exalted than the condition of the angels. But among the angels some rule over others; and so one orderis called that of "Dominations." Therefore it was not beneath the dignity of the state of innocence that one man should be subject to another.
I answer that, Mastership has a twofold meaning.

First, as opposed to slavery, in which sense a master means one to whom another is subject as a slave. In another sense mastership is referred in a general sense to any kind of subject; and in this sense even he who has the office of governing and directing free men, can be called a master. In the state of innocence man could have been a master of men, not in the former but in the latter sense. This distinction is founded on the reason that a slave differs from a free man in that the latter has the disposal of himself, as is stated in the beginning of the Metaphysics, whereas a slave is ordered to another. So that one man is master of another as his slave when he refers the one whose master he is, to his own–namely the master’s use. And since every man’s proper good is desirable to himself, and consequently it is a grievous matter to anyone to yield to another what ought to be one’s own, therefore such dominion implies of necessity a pain inflicted on the subject; and consequently in the state of innocence such a mastership could not have existed between man and man.

But a man is the master of a free subject, by directing him either towards his proper welfare, or to the common good. Such a kind of mastership would have existed in the state of innocence between man and man…

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm#article3

In any case, if Christian marriage doesn’t involve a wife obeying her husband, why does St. Peter, St. Paul, and the Church Fathers teach otherwise? I mean, look at what St. Thomas says afterwards:

because man is naturally a social being, and so in the state of innocence he would have led a social life. Now a social life cannot exist among a number of people unless under the presidency of one to look after the common good; for many, as such, seek many things, whereas one attends only to one. Wherefore the Philosopher says, in the beginning of the Politics, that wherever many things are directed to one, we shall always find one at the head directing them.

According to St. Thomas, ideas like “if men were angels, there would be no need for government” are false. We could point out other obvious signs that heirarchies would exist even without sin: the existence of the presbytery, for example.

So, to argue that Christian marriage cannot involve inequality because inequality is a result of sin is radically false from a Thomist perspective.

 

[Lucretius]

@Walking_Home

In a Marriage in the Lord – the spouses are subject to one another – out of reverence for Christ. With Christ-- there is no one sided – submission/obedience-- from wife to the husband

Then how do you explain St. Paul’s and St. Peter’s clear words on the subject?

I mean, I’m not stupid: many passages can be interpreted in different ways. But at the same time, Anglophone Catholics seem to go to the opposite absurdity: that every passage is pure potential to whatever meaning we happen to want to give it, which is false on its face as well. We can’t simply ignore that Scripture and tradition, up to the second Vatican council, has specifically taught that an essential role for the Christian wife is to obey her husband, but that no such role of obedience is every expressed for the male.

Look at it this way, Christ can be said to “submit” to the Apostles when he washes their feet, and in that sense we can speak of mutual submission, but it is clear that this submission does not involve Christ obeying the Apostles, nor does it involve Christ not being their king, or Christ “not being in charge.” And, on the other hand, it would be absurd to assert that the Apostles shouldn’t one the commands of Christ. To put it another way, the kind of submission a wife expresses in a marriage is distinctly different than the kind of “submission” a husband expresses. Otherwise, we are just rejecting the teachings of the Apostles in favor of modern winds of doctine.

Progression of doctrine doesn’t mean contradiction of old doctine. And using more neutral language like “mutual submission” is tolerable only so long as we keep in mind what this actually means, in line with Scripture, the Fathers, and the doctors, and not delude ourselves into thinking this means what modern people want it to mean: radical equality among the sexes, the rejection of real gender roles, and the denial of clear authority and the need for such.

Christi pax.

 

[Walking_Home]

Pride rooted the heart — the remedy is Christ.

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD

1. Drawn into the Paschal mystery and made living signs of the love of Christ and his Church, the hearts of Christian spouses are renewed and they are able to avoid elements of concupiscence in their relationship, as well as the subjugation introduced into the life of the first married couple by the break with God caused by sin. For Christian spouses, the goodness of love, for which the wounded human heart has continued to long, is revealed with new accents and possibilities. It is in this light that Jesus, faced with the question about divorce (cf. Mt 19:3-9), recalls the demands of the covenant between man and woman as willed by God at the beginning, that is, before the eruption of sin which had justified the later accommodations found in the Mosaic Law. Far from being the imposition of a hard and inflexible order, these words of Jesus are actually the proclamation of the “good news” of that faithfulness which is stronger than sin. The power of the resurrection makes possible the victory of faithfulness over weakness, over injuries and over the couple’s sins. In the grace of Christ which renews their hearts, man and woman become capable of being freed from sin and of knowing the joy of mutual giving.
2. “For all of you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ… there is neither male nor female”, writes Saint Paul to the Galatians (3:27-28). The Apostle Paul does not say that the distinction between man and woman, which in other places is referred to the plan of God, has been erased. He means rather that in Christ the rivalry, enmity and violence which disfigured the relationship between men and women can be overcome and have been overcome. In this sense, the distinction between man and woman is reaffirmed more than ever; indeed, it is present in biblical revelation up to the very end. In the final hour of present history, the Book of Revelation of Saint John, speaking of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1), presents the vision of a feminine Jerusalem “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 21:2). Revelation concludes with the words of the Bride and the Spirit who beseech the coming of the Bridegroom, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev22:20).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

 

[Lucretius]

@Walking_Home

the hearts of Christian spouses are renewed and they are able to avoid elements of concupiscence in their relationship, as well as the subjugation introduced into the life of the first married couple by the break with God caused by sin.

If this passage is taken to mean that a man doesn’t have an authority over his wife that she doesn’t herself possess over him, then it is simply heretical, as I have shown from the clear testimony I posted from the Scriptures and St. Thomas, as well as all the testimony I didn’t post from other parts of the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, Doctors, and many Popes, including St. John Paul II.

You can’t “reinterpret” serveral passages out of existence.

Christi pax.

 

[Walking_Home]

The sin of pride/hardness of heart – runs deep in some men – that they close themselves off from the light of Christ’s Grace.

 

[Theo520]

I would say most women handle this by making it clear they would expect a proposal after appropriate dating time has passed. This signals they are interested in marriage without having to make the formal proposal.

I’m always shocked when some guy makes a public proposal (like at a sports event, on camera) and is turned down. They should have had enough discussions before the actual proposal so that neither are surprised and the outcome is already certain. Only the timing should be a surprise.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m always shocked when some guy makes a public proposal (like at a sports event, on camera) and is turned down. They should have had enough discussions before the actual proposal so that neither are surprised and the outcome is already certain

I see nothing with a woman proposing per se. However, there are other things to think about in doing it. I really do think a couple ought to have at least a tacit understanding that they will marry before either of them directly proposes it. (there can be exceptions). In my lifetime, three women proposed to me. With the first two, there was no real, deep relationship, and it took me aback. It told me (or so it seemed) that they had no real understanding of marriage at that point in their lives.

The third was my wife, sort of. We knew for a long time we would marry. It was just a tacit and very clear understanding. One day, almost in a jesting way, she proposed. I responded “Don’t do that. It’s my place to do it, and I don’t want to do it until I ask your father for his blessing.” She just smiled and said “okay”. You see, her family was very traditional in their ways, and while her father’s consent was hardly required, it was a way of honoring her family. So, not too long afterward, I asked her father for his blessing on our marrying. My wife and her mother were in the next room, stifling their amusement at both me and her father, but I did it. I think her father appreciated my honoring the old-fashioned custom, and gave his consent and blessing. Thereupon (but not right then) I asked my wife to marry me.

Maybe nobody does that kind of thing nowadays, though I’m pretty sure my son did. He made a special trip from S.W. Mo to Maine to “make it formal” with his wife’s family.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I’m always shocked when some guy makes a public proposal (like at a sports event, on camera) and is turned down. They should have had enough discussions before the actual proposal so that neither are surprised and the outcome is already certain. Only the timing should be a surprise.

Brings to mind that saying about lawyers in court: they don’t ask the question unless they already know the answer.